Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/139

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

CM Auto Sales Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

sh. Varinder Singh, Adv

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 139 of 05.11.2014

                                 Date of decision              : 19.02.2015

 

Mandeep Singh s/o Hazura Singh, resident of Village Dakala, Tehsil & District Ropar.

                                                                                ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. C.M. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. (authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki),

    Chandigarh Road, Ropar, Tehsil and District Ropar through Paramjit

    Singh, Sales Manager.

2. Deepak Kumar (Mob. No. 99150-22885), Employee of CM. Auto Sales

    Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Ropar, Tehsil and District Ropar.

 

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Varinder Singh Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No. 1

Opposite Party No. 2 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Mandeep Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-alongwith interest @ 18% P.A.,

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of misleading him and for the mental harassment caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a driver by profession and was interested to purchase Swift D’zire vehicle for commercial purpose to earn his livelihood. Accordingly, he approached the O.Ps. and the O.P. No.2, namely, Deepak Kumar, gave him quotation regarding price of the same and other benefits to be given by the O.Ps., alongwith list of documents required for the said purpose. At that time, the O.P. No.2 had also disclosed him about the offer of Rs.20,000/- to be given by the Excise & Taxation Department and told him that to get the benefit of above said offer, he was to deposit the registration certificate alongwith other documents like permit, insurance policy, registration certificate only for tourist Maxi Cap., indemnity bond, ID proof, duly attested by Notary Public, within 90 days from the date of purchase of the said vehicle. After purchase of the vehicle on 22.8.2013, he submitted all the documents with O.P. No. 2, namely, Deepak Kumar on 13.11.2013, i.e. within 90 days, who had issued the receipt to that effect on 27.12.2013, but the O.Ps. did not send the documents within time to MSIL. On 13.11.2013, he had also paid Rs.250/- as courier charges, but due to negligence of the O.Ps., the said courier was sent by them vide POD/Docket  No. Z11854832 of DTC Courier Service, very late, and could not reach to the Excise Department, within 90 days. Vide letter dated 6.1.2014, the O.Ps. informed him that the rebate could not be confirmed as he had submitted the documents after lapse of period of 60 days, although it was admitted in the said letter that the documents were submitted after 3 months 2 days. The story regarding period of 60 days has been concocted by the O.Ps. to escape their liability. It is further stated that the offer in question was available keeping in view  the manufacturing date of the vehicle and not the date of its delivery. The O.P. No. 1 had intentionally supplied the vehicle, which was manufactured  in the month of April, 2013 and was delivered to him on 22.8.2013, when the offer had already expired. The O.Ps. had concealed the said fact intentionally. He had also issued a legal notice to O.P. No. 1 on 18.2.2014, which was duly replied, in which it has been admitted that  the limitation period for submission of the documents was 90 days, therefore, it was the duty of the said O.P. to submit the same with the Excise Department within time. Due to negligence & deficiency in service on the part of said O.P. the rebate of Rs.20,000/- has been cancelled by the Excise Department . Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 1 filed written statement in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Mahesh Mahajan, (MD), taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P.  and is liable to be dismissed under all circumstances; that the answering O.P. has been unnecessarily dragged in this frivolous litigation, as the documents were to be supplied within 90 days to the Excise Department to claim excise refund rebate, which fact also stands admitted by the complainant, but the requisite documents were submitted by him only on 24.11.2013 i.e. after 3 months & 2 days and due to said lapse, the case for refund of the excise refund was rejected, regarding which he was duly informed vide letter dated 6.1.2014.  On merits, the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections were reiterated and it was further stated that vide letter dated 6.1.2014, the requisite documents were correctly demanded within 60 days, so that the same could be submitted to the Excise Department within stipulated period of 90 days to claim the rebate, but since the same were supplied by the complainant on 24.11.2013 i.e. beyond the stipulated period, the same could not be supplied to the Excise Department within said period of 90 days, as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. It is further stated that rebate of Rs.7000/- has already been given to the complainant vide cheque No.415884 dated 12.11.2013 and in addition to that rebate of an amount of Rs.5670/-was also given to him being a local customer and he is not entitled to get any relief, as alleged by him. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs, the same being without any merits.

 

4.                None having appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.12.2014.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C21 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Mahesh Mahajan, MD, as Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.

 

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the contesting O.P. and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in order to avail rebate of Rs.20,000/- under the offer given by the Excise and Taxation Department, the complainant deposited all the requisite documents with the O.P. No.2 on 13.11.2013 i.e. within 84 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle in question i.e. 22.8.2013. He further submitted that the said documents, were got attested from the Notary Public on the date of submission of the same on 13.11.2013, itself. The receipt regarding deposit of the said documents was duly issued by the O.P. No.2, on the document, Ex. C8. He further submitted that as per quotation given by the O.Ps., the documents were to be submitted by the O.Ps. with the Excise and Taxation Department within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, but they did not deposit the same within the stipulated period of 90 days with the concerned authority and that is why the complainant could not avail the rebate as per the above said offer given by the Excise and Taxation Department, therefore, the complaint is liable to be accepted, and the reliefs, as prayed for in the same be granted.

 

8.                The learned counsel for the contesting O.P. submitted that the complainant had deposited the requisite documents only on 24.11.2013 and not on 13.11.2013. Mr. Deepak had never issued the receipt dated 27.12.2013, regarding receipt of the said document on 13.11.2013. Since the complainant had submitted the documents after 3 months & 2 days, therefore, due his own fault he could not avail the benefit under the offer given by the Excise & Taxation Department and the complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed, there being no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1.

 

9.                To prove this fact that all the requisite documents were delivered to Mr. Deepak i.e. O.P. No.2, the employee of O.P. No.1, on 13.11.2013, the complainant has placed on record a copy of receipt issued by him as Ex. C8. Whereas to prove this fact that the complainant delivered the said documents on 24.11.2013, no document has been produced by the O.P. No.1. Even the O.P. No.1 has not placed on record the affidavit of said Mr. Deepak i.e. O.P. No. 2, in support of its contention that he never issued the receipt, Ex. C8. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that he had submitted all the requisite documents to the O.Ps. on 13.11.2013. It may be stated that as per offer to avail rebate the requisite documents were to be submitted with the concerned authority by the seller i.e. C.M. Motors O.P. No.1 within the period of 90 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from O.P. No.1 on 22.08.2013. It is also established that complainant has submitted the requisite documents with the O.P. No.1 on 13.11.2013. It means that he had submitted the documents with the O.P. No. 1 on 84^th day of the purchase of the vehicle and the O.P. No.1 was bound to further submit the same to the concerned authority on or before 19.11.2013 i.e. the 90^th day of purchase of the vehicle, but it did not deposit the same with the said authority, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The O.P. No.1 is, thus, liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the rebate amount to the complainant along with interest w.e.f. 19.11.2013 i.e. the last day for submission of the said documents till realization. The O.P. No. 1 is also liable to pay the compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. However, so far as complaint filed against O.P. No.2 is concerned, neither any deficiency in service has been alleged on his part nor the same has been proved, therefore, the complaint against O.P. No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

 

10.              In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against the O.P. No.2 and allow the same against the O.P. No.1 and direct the O.P. No.1 in the following manner:-

                   i)       To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 9%

                             P.A. w.e.f. 19.11.2013 till realization,

 

ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation,

 

iii)     To pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

          The O.P. No.1 is further directed to comply with the orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 19.02.2015                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.   

 

 

 

 

le toL<����